Note: Currently new registrations are closed, if you want an account Contact us
Bangalore/BMSCE/Understanding GPL version 3
A discussion on GPL version 3 and its implications in the Free and Open Source community.
Date: 20th May 2007
Time: 10 am
Venue: BMS College of Engineering (directions to reach BMSCE)
Note: This page is a scratch pad and every participant is encouraged to share his notes/findings... here. You could expand any subtopic or add new subtopics/related discussions here. Also you could use the talk page for discussing how the discussion should go. --Pravs 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
| Another oft-heard objection to GPL3 is "GPL 2 is good enough!". But GPL has never stood alone, it has always depended on the local interpretation of copyright and other law to give it force, and those things change over time.
When the GPL was written, there was no web, music came from phonograph records, video from tape, and rather than DRM there was rudimentary software "copy protection". The renaissance of microprocessors, software, the web and digital media worked a tremendous change in the law with many changes to copyright, patents, the nature of consent, contracts, tear-open licenses, and copyright permissions. And there have been many trials over those years that added interpretation to laws that GPL 2 depends upon. As the law changes, GPL must change to keep up with it, or it will become increasingly un-enforcible. Bruce Perens |
Subtopics
Internationalization
new terms propagate and convey
Increased license compatibility
Incompatibility with GPLv2
- Concern of mixing GPLv2 and GPLv3 code in distributions
Tivoisation/DRM/Embedded Systems
| Confused objectors to GPL3 state that it won't allow the Linux kernel to be used on a system that implements DRM, and that GPL3 will compel manufacturers to "give away their keys". If Linus Torvalds and the kernel developers still believe this, they're wrong. Bruce Perens |
Patents (Novell-Microsoft deal)
| In the Novell-Microsoft agreement, a loophole was constructed by Microsoft and Novell's attorneys, one so new to us that the first two public drafts of GPL3 contained no provision to repair it. This experience shows that GPL must continue to grow just to stand still. To freeze on one version would act to erode its protections over time. Bruce Perens |
| ...the fact that Microsoft was selling coupons that customers could trade in for Novell Linux subscriptions meant that Microsoft was now a Linux distributor. And that, as Moglen saw it, meant that Microsoft was itself subject to the terms of the GPL. So he'd write a clause saying, in effect, that if Microsoft continued to issue Novell Linux coupons after the revised GPL took effect, it would be waiving its right to bring patent suits not just against Novell customers, but against all Linux users. |
Pre-requisites
- Read the third discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3.
- Read the discussion on GPLv3, Linux and GPLv2 compatibility on Alison Randall's blog
- Bruce Perens clearing up FUD on GPLv3